Bonding of composite cements to zirconia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies

Thammajaruk, Putsadeeporn; Inokoshi, Masanao; Chong, Shanley; Guazzato, Massimiliano

doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.02.008

Cited by 88 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…At the same time, the surface wettability and bond strength of zirconia are improved. At present, 10-MDP is the most widely used functional monomer [7,20]. In this study, the five resin-based luting agents were selected according to their different adhesive systems and whether they contained 10-MDP: total-etch, resin-based luting agent RUl and self-adhesive, resin-based luting agent RUn without 10-MDP; self-etch, resin-based luting agent PF and self-adhesive, resin-based luting agents SAC, and MS with 10-MDP.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the shear bond strength of five resin-based luting agents to zirconia ceramics

Liu

Jiang

et al. 2020

J Oral Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated the bond strength and aging resistance performance of five resin-based luting agents to zirconia. A total of 100 large blocks (10.0 mm × 10.0 mm × 2.5 mm) and 100 small blocks (4.0 mm × 4.0 mm × 2.5 mm) of zirconia were airborne-particle abraded and randomly divided into five groups: (RelyX Ultimate [RUl]; Panavia F [PF]; Clearfil SA Luting [SAC]; Multilink Speed [MS]; and RelyX Unicem [RUn]). The small blocks were bonded to the large blocks using the resin-based luting agents. Shear bond strengths (SBS) and failure mode were determined before and after 5,000 thermocycles. After being stored in water for 24 h, the SBS were MS > PF > RUl > SAC > RUn (P < 0.05). After 5,000 thermocycles, the SBS were MS > SAC ≈ RUl > PF ≈ RUn (P < 0.05); the SBS of the PF, MS, and RUn groups were lower than that before 5,000 thermocycles (P < 0.01). Adhesive failure, cohesive failure, or mixed failure occurred in the specimens. In general, Clearfil SA Luting, a self-adhesive resin-based luting agent containing 10-methacryloxy decyl diphosphate, had good initial and durable SBS to zirconia and was a better adhesive.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the shear bond strength of five resin-based luting agents to zirconia ceramics

Liu

Jiang

et al. 2020

J Oral Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several systematic reviews have reported the efficacy of bonding to zirconia by performing alumina particle abrasion followed by a primer containing the molecule 10methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP). [11][12][13][14] Unlike particle abrasion of glass-ceramic materials, particle abrasion of 3Y-PSZ zirconia does not weaken the material in static strength testing. 15,16 Three mol% yttria partially-stabilized zirconia undergoes transformation toughening in which local transformation of tetragonal zirconia to monoclinic zirconia can impede propagation of an advancing crack.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several systematic reviews have reported the efficacy of bonding to zirconia by performing alumina particle abrasion followed by a primer containing the molecule 10‐methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP) . Unlike particle abrasion of glass‐ceramic materials, particle abrasion of 3Y‐PSZ zirconia does not weaken the material in static strength testing .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Surface Treatment and Cement on Fracture Load of Traditional Zirconia (3Y), Translucent Zirconia (5Y), and Lithium Disilicate Crowns

Lawson

Jurado

Huang

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To determine if surface treatment and cement selection for traditional 3 mol% yttria partially stabilized zirconia (3Y‐PSZ), “translucent” 5 mol% yttria‐stabilized zirconia (5Y‐Z), or lithium disilicate crowns affected their fracture load. Materials and Methods Crowns with 0.8 mm uniform thickness (96, n = 8/group) were milled of 3Y‐PSZ (Lava Plus), 5Y‐Z (Lava Esthetic), or lithium disilicate (e.max CAD) and sintered/crystallized. Half the crowns were either particle‐abraded with 30 µm alumina (zirconias) or etched with 5% hydrofluoric acid (lithium disilicate), and the other half received no surface treatment. Half the crowns from each group were luted with resin‐modified glass ionomer (RMGI, RelyX Luting Plus) and half were luted with a resin cement (RelyX Unicem 2) to resin composite dies. Crowns were load cycled (100,000 cycles, 100 N force, 24°C water) and then loaded with a steel indenter until failure. A three‐way ANOVA examined the effects of material, cement, and surface treatment on fracture load. Post‐hoc comparisons were performed with the Tukey‐Krammer method. Results Fracture load was signficiantly different for materials and cements (p < 0.0001) but not surface treatments (p = 0.77). All lithium disilicate crowns luted with RMGI failed in fatigue loading cycling; 3Y‐PSZ and 5Y‐Z crowns luted with resin showed a higher fracture load compared with RMGI (p < 0.001). With resin cement, there was no signficant difference in fracture load between 5Y‐Z and lithium disiliciate (p = 1) whereas 3Y‐PSZ had a higher fracture load (p < 0.0001). Conclusions Cement type affected fracture load of crowns but surface treatment did not. The 0.8 mm uniform thick crowns tested benefited from using resin cement regardless of type of ceramic material. Crowns fabricated from 5Y‐Z may be particle‐abraded if luted with resin cement.

show abstract

“…The choice of two retainers provided greater contact with the surface of the enamel, contributing to the union of the structure to the abutment teeth . In addition, studies have shown higher fracture resistance for RBFPD from two retainers than for cantilever RBFPDs …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8,19,21,22 In addition, studies have shown higher fracture resistance for RBFPD from two retainers than for cantilever RBFPDs. 23,24 Traditional RBFDP made with metal frame, present esthetic disadvantage with grayish discoloration through the enamel of the teeth of the pillar caused by the shadow effect of the structure. 8,19,25 RBFPD made entirely in ceramic, can minimize this disadvantage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A low cost minimally invasive adhesive alternative for maxillary central incisor replacement

Vasques

Martins

Magalhães

et al. 2018

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The beneficial mechanical properties of zirconia, together with the adhesive techniques, provide a wide range of clinical applications, including the construction of thin structures and minimally invasive adhesive restorations. Clinical Considerations A periodontal disease‐related missing maxillary central incisor, in a pregnant patient with chronic periodontal disease in the first trimester of pregnancy, and with type II diabetes treated with resin‐bonded fixed partial denture using the missing tooth cemented to a zirconia framework and then bonded to the abutment teeth. Conclusions According to the systemic conditions presented in this case report, using a low‐cost technology and the missing tooth it was possible to obtain an easier and satisfactory esthetic and functional result. Clinical Significance The mechanical properties of zirconia made it possible to treat a pregnant patient with chronic periodontal disease in the first trimester of pregnancy, and with type II diabetes with a thin zirconia framework and minimally invasive adhesive restorations.

show abstract

Bonding of composite cements to zirconia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies

Cited by 88 publications

References 30 publications

Investigating the shear bond strength of five resin-based luting agents to zirconia ceramics

Investigating the shear bond strength of five resin-based luting agents to zirconia ceramics

Effect of Surface Treatment and Cement on Fracture Load of Traditional Zirconia (3Y), Translucent Zirconia (5Y), and Lithium Disilicate Crowns

A low cost minimally invasive adhesive alternative for maxillary central incisor replacement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About